Outrage justified in Wasserman-Rubin corruption case

April 24, 2013

If you are outraged by how South Florida's latest public corruption case wound up, you are justified. Totally.

In a region that's grown almost numb to the parade of public officials arrested for corruption, the disposition of the case against former Broward County Commissioner Diana Wasserman-Rubin is particularly galling.

This is a woman who admitted in court that she provided false information — three different times — about whether her husband would receive bonus payments for votes she made while on the county commission.

Yes, this was your basic violation of the public trust, the kind we've witnessed way too often in recent years.

But because of her physical condition, Wasserman-Rubin, 66, who faced five felony counts of receiving unlawful compensation, is getting off with a tiny wrist slap — a $3,000 fine and three years of probation for pleading guilty to three misdemeanor charges of falsifying records.

Adding to the outrage, she'll almost certainly get to keep her state pension of about $4,895 a month. That's about $60,000 a year of your money for a public official who should be behind bars.

Yes, outrageous. Particularly in a county where too many public officials believe public service means lining their family's pockets with the perks that can arise while distributing government goodies.

It would have felt right to see Wasserman-Rubin face a hefty fine and jail time — and the loss of her pension. It would have sent a strong message to the public and South Florida elected leaders that we demand better.

But because of the former commissioner's physical challenges, the Broward State Attorney's Office lacked confidence it could secure a guilty verdict at trial.

Wasserman-Rubin has Parkinson's disease and her health has deteriorated noticeably in recent months. She attended the last two court hearings in a wheelchair, and prosecutors believed she would present a highly sympathetic figure to a jury. Also, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Spence Eig had already said — amazingly so — that he would not sentence Wasserman-Rubin to prison if she were found guilty at trial.

To secure any kind of conviction, prosecutors basically allowed Wasserman-Rubin and her lawyer, Fred Haddad, to set the terms of her plea deal.

You've heard of victim's rights, where victims get some say in their attacker's punishment? This case essentially allowed the criminal to set her own punishment. Wasserman-Rubin said she would accept nothing less than a deal that let her collect her pension. And prosecutors agreed.

Again, if you are outraged, you are justified.

It is fair to wonder whether prosecutors, so soon after losing what appeared to be a slam-dunk corruption case against Tamarac Commissioner Patte Atkins-Grad, wanted to make sure they secured some kind of conviction against Wasserman-Rubin. A jury acquitted Atkins-Grad, you'll recall, despite two developers saying they spent $6,300 to help her lease a BMW, among other things, in return for her vote for a 700-home development.

"I thought we had a great case against Atkins-Grad," prosecutor Tim Donnelly told the Sun Sentinel Editorial Board. "I was stunned when they came back 'not guilty.'"

And while there have been other successful public corruption cases lately — former Fort Lauderdale Vice Mayor Cindi Hutchinson is serving four months in jail after accepting free home-improvement work from a developer — prosecutors did not want to bet on a jury with a sympathetic-looking defendant.

Few feel good about this outcome — not the prosecutors, and certainly not the public.

But for defense attorneys, the big lesson is to do whatever is necessary to make defendants appear as sympathetic as possible. Given the precedent this case sets, expect to see it again and again.